Should any nation be given the means to start border conflicts?
- Thread starter Spelaren
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
They need to add border conflicts on your puppets. So we can actually have Battles of Khalkin Gol.
- 3
- 3
Nope! Absolutely not!
Free border conflicts are better suited to represent border changes in games spanning a larger time period.
Unlike something like Victoria, HoI4 is a very focused game about a tiny-small time period (36-46~), therefore it requires a bit more of railroading than other Paradox grand strategy games.
Allowing free border conflicts would completely derail and break the whole game (imagine "border conflicting" the Suez, Danzig, etc).
That's why border conflicts in HoI4 must be scripted only to happen in certain times, when it makes sense in the context of HoI4 time period.
This means Paradox must research and add every border conflict manually, but its the only way it makes sense in this game.
Free border conflicts are better suited to represent border changes in games spanning a larger time period.
Unlike something like Victoria, HoI4 is a very focused game about a tiny-small time period (36-46~), therefore it requires a bit more of railroading than other Paradox grand strategy games.
Allowing free border conflicts would completely derail and break the whole game (imagine "border conflicting" the Suez, Danzig, etc).
That's why border conflicts in HoI4 must be scripted only to happen in certain times, when it makes sense in the context of HoI4 time period.
This means Paradox must research and add every border conflict manually, but its the only way it makes sense in this game.
- 5
- 2
- 1
I like the mechanic very much and I do think that under the right circumstances it could be applied in a few more cases. It'd probably be best if the requirements are pretty high, such as a minimum level of world tension, domestic war support and so on. (Excluding historical instances such as Khalkin Gol ).
- 1
- 1
Sounds very plausible, there were border incidents in the days before September 1.
No reason that couldn't have gone differently in an alternative timeline.
- 1
I think my point flew right over your head, border incidents do not equal border conflicts were you actually get to keep enemy land.
Are you ok in turning the catalyst of WW2 (which the game is focused on) into a minor skirmish? I'm pretty sure most people don't, what happened to "Danzig or war"?
I certainly don't think taking European countries land by piece meal is any plausible or engaging.
- 1
Well it didn't in reality, but in a situation where Poland didn't have any backing, Germany expanding the border conflict without a 'real' declaration of war isn't impossible.
More plausible than 50% of the decisions already in game
You realize Poland can already just give you Danzig?
The war can also start over Czechoslovakia.
Expanding the possible conditions for border conflicts would simply allow more alternative situations in game.
If you don't like therm you wouldn't have to use them.
Border conflicts need to be completely reworked before they think about introducing the mechanic beyond China. As it stands, they are an RNG-heavy, complete waste of time and political power, which no Chinese nation can afford to spare in the early game. The wiki describes them as "the early-game gameplan" (emphasis theirs) for Communist China, which couldn't be further from the truth, as rushing Shanxi, Xibei San Ma, and Sinkiang provides a far better payoff.
- 2
- 1
- 1
Would it make sense to make the AI to almost always retaliate in all these new, non-scripted border conflicts
I'm not seeing Hitler just waltzing into Danzig, annexing it, then waltz right into Berlin while saying to a now high-tension Europe "it was only this slice guys! Take a chill-pill!".
I disagree this is plausible at all at that point.
Sure, maybe an even higher percentage! The problem here is that border conflicts is an highly unrealistic gameplay mechanic to use in Europe, that could be used pretty much willy-nilly in any path you take.
Imagine doing that to the Maginot or the Suez! That's why it needs to be applied only in places where it makes sense.
While at least when you take an unrealistic focci path, you're not changing the gameplay, you just entered the war with a silly context.
One thing is to surrender Danzig, other thing is to fight for Danzig only and just let it end there, I'm sure you can realize the difference?
Sure the WWII can start over Czechoslovakia, what of it? The Czechs were in an impossible position and no one was willing to help them, and so Czechoslovakia was surrendered due to fear that a small conflict over it could spark a war, do you realize now why border conflicts in Europe and that idea of just taking European territories by peace meal is unrealistic? (and imo unengaging?)
I think the only thing that was going to expand is the breaking of focus trees reliant on holding certain provinces.
The "don't like it don't use it" is a open the flood gates type argument that does not fit this game at all, "lets give kamikaze pilots to all countries even to the one that don't make sense, don't like don't use it right?"
- 1
- 1
Waste of political power? You realize that when you win the border conflict you get all the PP back? The cost is literally nothing. They also aren't RNG heavy at all, as you can choose which divisions you do the conflict with, allowing you to take your 6 six super divisions packed with arty that win instantly. You can also target the state you want by army placement. And when you annex a nation via border conflict, you inherit their entire stockpile, allowing you to immediately dump another 20-30 divisions on the field? If you can take out everyone in '36 then it's probably better to do that, but otherwise the border conflicts are the superior way to go. Pretty much everything in your post is wrong aside from MAYBE rushing the warlords being better.
Last edited:
To be perfectly honest, I haven't spend much time playing as the warlords, mostly because my experiences with the border conflict mechanics have turned me off, but for Communist China and Nationalist China, there are definitely better options.
Another two cents of mine: Several territorial disputes could be implemented via the border conflict mechanic. For example Bolivia wanting back a piece of the Chilean coastline or the Gran Chaco they had lost to Paraguay. Another instance would be colonial conflicts such as something resembling the Fashoda Incident.
As others have said, the mechanic makes little sense where borders are pretty well defined, like in Europe.
In game, they represent battles over disputed territories in areas that are less clearly mapped (like Asia), or technically internal conflicts/borders of a nation (China). The only place one is used in another context is the Mexican Border conflcit to take the Panama Canal Zone, which always left a bad taste in my mouth.
Better mechanics for manual peace conferences (ie no longer taking 6 months and a very difficult to get warscore) would make more sense for a more limited war between Germany and Poland alone or Germany and Czechoslovakia alone. Would be difficult to get right though.
The mechanic might have some application in South America, where borders (at least in the Andes/Amazon) were a bit less defined/more fluid. A month long conflict with limited territorial exchange could actually decently represent the Ecuadorian-Peruvian War of 1941. If it was everywhere it would likely lead to silly results though, like the Axis hiding behind border wars to avoid full-blown conflicts with the Allies.
In game, they represent battles over disputed territories in areas that are less clearly mapped (like Asia), or technically internal conflicts/borders of a nation (China). The only place one is used in another context is the Mexican Border conflcit to take the Panama Canal Zone, which always left a bad taste in my mouth.
Better mechanics for manual peace conferences (ie no longer taking 6 months and a very difficult to get warscore) would make more sense for a more limited war between Germany and Poland alone or Germany and Czechoslovakia alone. Would be difficult to get right though.
The mechanic might have some application in South America, where borders (at least in the Andes/Amazon) were a bit less defined/more fluid. A month long conflict with limited territorial exchange could actually decently represent the Ecuadorian-Peruvian War of 1941. If it was everywhere it would likely lead to silly results though, like the Axis hiding behind border wars to avoid full-blown conflicts with the Allies.
I think border wars should be available to everyone, but the effect should be small for example:
Winner gains 50 pp and 25xp
Loser gets a temporary 1 year 10% stability hit and 25xp (losing leads to rethinking your tactics)
Only once for every neighbor you have
Only in China it would lead to winning territory
And a relations hit, the defender should strongly dislike the attacker
Winner gains 50 pp and 25xp
Loser gets a temporary 1 year 10% stability hit and 25xp (losing leads to rethinking your tactics)
Only once for every neighbor you have
Only in China it would lead to winning territory
And a relations hit, the defender should strongly dislike the attacker
Last edited: